The latest tax revenue figures from Harrisburg suggest that the state budget for next year will be as challenging — or more challenging — than last year. The first place state lawmakers should look for cost savings is the Legislature itself.

A budget shortfall of $500 million or more is predicted, and cost savings will have to be widespread. That’s appropriate, but cuts should be fair, meaning lawmakers should contribute. Trimming the Legislature’s budget will not erase the shortfall, but it will help.

In last year’s budget debate, there was talk about lawmakers and staff being a target for savings. But nothing significant happened. There is no excuse for the Legislature to be exempt from budget-cutting pain.

Pennsylvania’s state Legislature is the most expensive in the nation. Between lawmakers and staffs, Pennsylvania’s state government is often described as bloated.

There are more state lawmakers in Harrisburg than in any other state capitol, except in New Hampshire, where true citizen lawmakers are paid $200 for a two-year term. No other state pays their lawmakers as much as Pennsylania, except California and New York, which have much larger populations.

And not only does Pennsylvania have more state lawmakers than other states, the commonwealth’s lawmakers employ more staffers than any other state. The ratio of staffers to lawmakers is higher in Harrisburg than in any other state.

The National Conference of State Legislatures says that Pennsylvania employs about one of every 11 state legislative workers in the nation, despite the state having only 4 percent of the country’s population.

How can any lawmaker in Harrisburg defend such overstaffing? It’s a waste of money at any time, and is especially egregious when budgets are tight.

The overstaffing in the General Assembly should be targeted.

In an Associated Press article published last spring about the state Legislature’s size and costs, the staffing formula in Harrisburg was called a “mystery” by one lawmaker. In some cases, a lawmaker has several district offices and a staff of a dozen. In other cases, there is just one district office and a staff of two or three.

One frugal lawmaker, Rep. Glen Grell, R-Cumberland, said, “We all represent the same number of people, so if I can do it with one or two (staffers), that might be closer to what’s really needed than eight or 10.”

The AP article noted that the House has “617 legislative assistants, 363 district office managers or constituent outreach specialists, 95 research analysts, 50 custodians (there are 19 in the Senate). . . .”

When it comes to district offices and constituent services, the AP noted that in some cases district offices are in close proximity to one another, suggesting overlap and waste.

What’s known as constituent service often involves taking care of things that can be done by PennDOT or other state agencies. Lawmakers offer special, sometimes expedited, services and help with paperwork as a way to ingratiate voters and win re-election. But this work has nothing to do with lawmaking. These costly “constituent services” should be significantly scaled back.

Cutting back on constituent services would make it easier to reduce staffing levels of the Legislature. PennDOT and other state agencies could take over for much of what is offered as constituent services at lawmakers’ district offices.

Less than a year ago, the AP reported that the 203-member House had a workforce of 1,935 and a payroll of $76.3 million. Health care and pension benefits were not included.

The 50-member state Senate had 855 employees and a payroll of $42.8 million.

It should not take a 3,000-person legislative workforce to operate Pennylvania’s General Assembly. Other states, including larger states, manage with fewer people — and lower costs.

Bloated staffing is just another perk that Harrisburg lawmakers have given themselves. It’s time for that to end.